memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Date issues Since this site places Space Seed in the Year 2267 would that place ST2 in 2282 (15 years later) -- TOSrules 05:44, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Both are correct as Khan states that he was on Ceti Alpha V for 15 years and the movie is set in 2285 and Kirk agreed with Khan. This is a continuity error, but one easy to fix. We can just suppose that Khan referred to local years on Ceti Alpha V and Kirk agreed with Khan because after 18 years, Kirk did not remember that it was 18 years ago instead of 15 years ago. It is just a little retcon. It is not like an whole season is a dream sequence. ;) Ŭalabio 21:11, 2004 Nov 21 (CET) ::Or we could just assume everyone is rounding off, as people often do in everyday speech. --Steve 21:16, 21 Nov 2004 (CET) :::The film cannot be set in 2282 - the label on the bottle of Romulan ale which Bones gives Kirk as a birthday gift reads 2283! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 06:02, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) :::: the Romulans used time warp, obviously (-; that's why Romulan ale is illegal, or Bones is brewing some bathtub gin, er, Romulan ale and got the label wrong. The Romulan Ale is Romulan, so on a Romulan Calendar it is after 2283, heck it could be 2383 on the romulan Calendar. And before you point out anything like the date they left, remember their plant could have a shorter orbit. --TOSrules 19:57, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm glad to see I'm not the only one bothered by Star Trek's time inconsistencies. The one involving "The Wrath of Khan" particularly annoyed the hell out of me. :::::First of all, why would ROMULAN Ale have an Earth date on it? Secondly, is two years that long a time to ferment? (I'm really asking; I have no clue) :::::Lastly, it is rare enough to find one person who rounds down from 18 years (2285-2267) to get 15, but two or more doing that is absurd. If Star Trek II does take place in 2285, then the episode "Space Seed" must have taken place around 2270. I don't believe it did. Khan was a romantic who used license when referring to the number of centuries it had been since he ruled on Earth, but if he wanted to round the number 18, he would have said 20 years. And Kirk would have said 20 years as well. But Kirk also said fifteen. Thus I can only conclude that A.) ST II:TWOK taked place in 2282 and B.) I have way too much time on my hands. ::::::Well, it could have very well taken place in 2282, although this seems unlikely since Kirk was retired in 2284. He was presumably retired in 2282, as well, when he met Antonia in Idaho, but he also could have been on shore leave. Who knows? --From Andoria with Love 23:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::::Getting back to the year in which Star Trek II was supposed to have taken place, I had not really thought about the scene in Star Trek: Generations in which Kirk talks about Antonia and returning to Starfleet. Two things come to mind however. First of all, I recently read in one of Ronald D. Moore's old blogs that he had intended Kirk's time in the Nexus to have referred to the period either before or after the events in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and thus the whole time period is a bit screwed up. Second, even before I knew Moore's thoughts on this, I never bought the piece about Antonia and the other events in the Nexus, as the Nexus didn't give people reality; Picard didn't actually have a wife and family and his nephew couldn't have visited his house for Christmas. And Kirk never actually retired from Starfleet; he was promoted. Therefore I stick to my original belief that the movie, despite conventional wisdom, took place in 2282. :::::::Incidentally, I listened to Nick Meyer's commentary on the Star Trek II special edition DVD today. And his explanations of certain ideas only reaffirmed my opinion. He said that Kirk was going to be specifically aged at 49 years old (Shatner objected). Whether Meyer realized that most fans consider Kirk to have been born in 2233 is questionable. But this would definitively place the movie's events in 2282. Incidentally, I still have too much time on my hands. We Trek fans are, on average, the most anal retentive of all fans in the world to contemplate, much less debate when a fictional event took place. ::::::::If I can correct, Kirk's relationship with Antonia ended 9 years prior to the date that Kirk entered the nexus. How was this date established? I otherwise know of nothing that precludes the movie from having taken place as early as 2283 which would place at 2268 only one year's shift from the accepted date. Federation 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Here's another thought. Assume that Kirk did tell Antonia that he intended to return to starfleet in 2284. Does this mean anything? Kirks meets Antonia while he is an admiral on Earth. ST:II-ST:IV took place between March 22 2283 and some time in 2284. Kirk retires briefly 2284 and returns to duty. I believe there is something like 3 months between III and IV. Leaving a full month for II and III to take place, this takes us to July 2283. This still leaves Kirk a 17 month retirement. Federation 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) :::::::::Wow, this was over a year ago... um, okay, the Star Trek Chronology conjectures that Kirk was retired between the years 2281 and 2284. In fact, however, it was never specified that Kirk actually "retired", per se, and even so, the exact date of that retirement is never given. All that is known is that Kirk left Antonia and returned to Starfleet nine years prior to 2293 following an absence of some kind (or a planned absence – perhaps he was thinking about leaving but decided against it). I personally believe that Star Trek II and the next two films took place in 2282 (or maybe 83) and that Kirk either briefly resigned or considered resigning prior to Star Trek V, and that he met Antonia while taking shore leave on Earth while the Enterprise-A was getting all the bugs worked out of it (as seen in Trek V). Of course, that's merely my own speculation... :::::::::If Star Trek II took place that early in 2283, then the rest of the films took place in that same year. Star Trek III took place at most a few weeks after Star Trek II and Star Trek IV took place I think 3 months after Star Trek IV. Nothing wrong with that, just making that clear and agreeing with you. (See my reply above, as well). --From Andoria with Love 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Interesting that we both came up with similar theories. One thing is clear though, if ST:II took place on March 22 of a year, ST:III must had taken place the same year, and ST:IV in all likelihood took place that same year too. So if everyone think that ST:II took place March 22 2285 then why does memory-alpha place ST:III & IV in 2286? Also I rewatched ST:II last night and there is that funny line in the movie about the ale: Kirk: "2283?" McCoy: "It takes time for the stuff to ferment". Like many great lines in Star Trek films, its hard to make heads or tails out of what it means. The ale wasn't consumed until 2293. Maybe Kirk was disgusted that the stuff was new, and Bones was warning him he needed to give it time before he drank it. Federation 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC) :::::::::Yeah, I had a whole timeline created and posted on my subpage which included an entry explaining that Kirk did not actually retire but was only considering it. Although that has since been removed to make way for other info, you can still find my thoughts about dating the second, third and fourth movies here. As for the ale... I never actually thought of that before. It was never implied in the film, but the ale they drank during Star Trek VI could have been the bottle McCoy gave Kirk. I don't think Kirk was disgusted, but he may have been questioning the year. Again, though, it's also possible that it was a Romulan year printed on the bottle. Alas, all this is merely speculation; personally, though, I would prefer to move the date of Star Trek II to 2283, at least. --From Andoria with Love 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::::::Well, two points really. (I know this topic is old but who cares.) First of all on the timing, "15 years ago", it's like me, I round off to five years. As Ŭalabio said (in 2004): "Kirk agreed with Khan because after 18 years, Kirk did not remember that it was 18 years ago instead of 15 years ago". Maybe Kirk rounds off to every five years too. With the Romulan Ale part, McCoy would have said if it had been a Romulan calendar year, surely. Dave 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC) This one has bugged me for a while. First, when Kirk reads the date, 2283, McCoy's quip, in context, was most likely intended to be a joke about how new it is. Second, the movie was actually produced 15 years after "Space Seed" and 11 years before the Okudas produced their chronology. Third, Director Nicholas Meyer mentions in his Director's Edition commentary that Kirk was 49, although he and the Shat agreed not to specify (while this doesn't make it official, it does give it context). Kirk seems to be having difficulty with this particular birthday. Fourth, the Okuda Chronology places Star Trek IV 78 years prior to the Next Generation based on press materials. However, the 78-year figure has never been spoken or seen in any episode or film. This seems to break the established rules for what is included in the canon. So, in conclusion, the film took place 15 years after "Space Seed" (as established on screen) just like Kirk and Khan said it did, around 2283.--Voyager 7 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Chamber where Spock was launched from? How is the chamber called, where Spock's 'funeral' took place? :Spock's funeral took place in the Enterprise's starboard side torpedo launcher (remember, the port side launcher was destroyed by the Reliant). --ApolloBoy 05:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) From Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements Copied from --Memory 19:04, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) :It should be noted that it's not the entire article, only part of the summary that has been deemed a copyright infringement. I think simply removing that portion of the text would be enough; that's usually what happens, anyway - someone pastes a copyrighted summary, it is simply reverted. I'm not sure if there's a need to place it here. Could be wrong, though. --From Andoria with Love 22:21, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) The problem is the old version stored in the database. Just removing it doesn't separates it from the history, so the versions must be deleted. If we just revert, we don't need this page here, if there is something like Lumerian we just remove it and write a short stub. But that won't erase the copyvio (to hit "Save page" means relicensing it without permission, so we have to remove all traces of this, just for the case that someone copies the copyvio version from here later). --Memory 17:23, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) :: Well if no one touches this yet in the next 12 hours or so the summary will have to be deleted and can be rewritten from scratch. --Alan del Beccio Only the reverted part please ;-) --Memory 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::Perhaps you should do it, since I'm not seeing what you are getting at outside of explaining why we don't just revert it to the point prior to the addition of the copyvio template. --Alan del Beccio 10:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not an admin and can't delete the three copyvios in the history (1, 2 and 3). --Memory 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) ::It's not that easy. Even if I delete those specific entries, the same text is going to remain in the article. The text needs to be removed from the article or rewritten. Anyone can do that. --Alan del Beccio 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Uh? Only the three versions I listed contain the cv stuff. This has been removed with my revert. Deletion of them is now the next step. --Memory 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ::What is the point deleting contributions in the middle of a contribution list when the information is no longer in the article? --Alan del Beccio 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Read above: they are still copyvios as long as they are stored anywhere here under our license. --Memory 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Moved, remains unresolved, please do not copy the mentioned versions while citing MA as their source. Use the Wikipedia original instead. --Memory 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Restructuring ;"Memorable Quotes" I removed this section, since all the "memorable quotes" that are truly memorable have been integrated in either the Summary or Analysis section, or are taglines of thumbnails. Ottens 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :It's still nice to see some memorable quotes in their own section. There are a number of episodes that have the quotes buried in the text, but sometimes if you want a quick tagline, it's nice to check out the "MQ" section. As such, I'd suggest putting it back in, even if it repeats some of the lines. -- Sulfur 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) The thing is, the majority of the quotes are repeated under "Analysis", which would come right after "Memorable Quotes". Most of the others are in the thumbs--there are only a few that are "buried" in the text. So most shouldn't be hard to find. I just think that it's not a good idea to lengthen the page ever further, especially when it means repeating the same lines. Ottens 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ;"Analysis" I think between Summary and Background is the appropriate location, since it discusses the themes of the film; it's not a behind-the-scenes thing. Ottens 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ;"Summary" As the name indicates, this is supposed to be a summary of the film's story, not a scene-by-scene breakdown, which is pretty much how it stands now. I would like to revert the edits made to the Summary section by Capt Christopher Donovan. Please let me know if there are any objections. Ottens 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :You'll have to revert much farther than that, I'm afraid. All I did was clean up grammar/syntax, etc, and move a couple of sentences. The basic structure of the article is 95%+ the same as I found it in...I had contemplated doing a total re-write, but didn't have the time then (and really don't now). :I don't have any objections if someone else wants to take a whack at it (not that my permission is needed in the first place). I would note that I've read other ep/movie summaries here that ARE as detailed as this one. Either way, I'd say leave it as is unless/until someone CAN do a "ground up" revision...Capt Christopher Donovan 09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Well I'll at least do some cleaning up then, there are some sentences bolded for some reason, and the images don't line up. Ottens 10:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC) DYK suggestion *That in Star Trek II you can see a "Smoking Prohibited" sign in the simulation room around the time that the distress call is received from the Neutral Zone Check if that needs to be added here as a background info... -- Cid Highwind 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Genesis? I love this line from the image caption: To Meyer's mind, Khan was related to Satan, who fell from grace with God. Of course, thematically, this linked him with Genesis-–another of the film's Biblical allusions. but I don't think there's much to back it up. Unless someone can provide a reference? Federation 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Early names (Comments and criticisms section, paragraph 7) mentions that the original name for the movie was "The Vengeance of Khan". This page mentions nothing like that; is there any proof behind this? --206.13.95.66/ 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Homosexuality I noticed you reverted the part about the gay actors. Is it irrelevant? Why? Federation 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC) : How is it relevant? Why not just list everyone who is heterosexual, blue-eyed, and Catholic while we are at it? Those facts are equally irrelevant. --Alan del Beccio 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :: (Edit conflict) I didn't revert it, but I don't understand it's relevance. While it may seem interesting that three of the 28 credited actors were homosexual, statistically, the same can be said of probably every Trek production, and I don't think common sense items need be included. Their orientation shouldcould of course be noted on their page (which it is).--Tim Thomason 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC) : I'm still not even sure that much is necessary, are all the heterosexual actors orientations noted on their pages as well? --Alan del Beccio 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :: No. I meant in a full complete actors page, orientation might come up, and could be noted for completeness. John Logan named a character after his partner, which should be noted, and George Takei's "coming out" is a major part of his biography and big news in the homosexual community. Paul Winfield's orientation on the other hand isn't and probably shouldn't be noted on his page, as he kept it out of the public eye, like most Trek-related people. I think I was just being overly-political without even noticing the implications of my comments.--Tim Thomason 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :::As the one who reverted the addition, I guess I should back up my actions. Stating that some actors in a movie were gay is extremely irrelevant... basically, who cares? Actually, a more proper question would be, who should care? Does it take away from their performance? No. Does it add insight into how the film was made? No. And, as Alan said, why single out the homosexuals? Why not blacks or Jews? I guess what it comes down to is... why should we single anyone out at all? It's noting what does not need to be noted... so it is irrelevant. That's my reasoning behind the removal of the information. --From Andoria with Love 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) For the record, I meant no anger, disrespect or malice (I think that word fits here) towards you, Federation – I just wanted to make my point very clear. It may have sounded harsh, but I think it got the point across. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Major copyvio? In cleaning up this article, I noticed that the script section seemed a bit too professional compared to the bulk of our articles (no offense intended to anyone). Upon doing a Google search on some of the phrases in that section, this site popped up, a virtual duplicate of the text here. It appears that when Ottens did a rewrite of our article, he copied the text verbatim from his Forgotten Trek site. The footnote on his site states "From Star Trek: The Magazine, volume 3, issue 05 (September 2002)", which is also cited as a source for our article. If, as it appears, the text on Forgotten Trek was copied in toto from the magazine, most likely without permission, then we have a definite copyvio here. I don't have access to a copy of that issue, though, so I can't be sure. If it was copied, and permission was granted, then that needs to be stated somewhere in the article. If not, then it should be removed. There may be other areas of copyvio in the article as well; I stopped searching after I found the big one. -- Renegade54 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) : Forgotten Trek is Ottens personal website. It's even listed on his user page. --Alan 04:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Khan and his medallion Did anyone notice the medallion Khan wears throughout the film? The one like a C with a Starfleet insignia of sorts in it? It's the insignia Kirk wears. Where do you suppose he got it? Dave 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) :I would assume it was one of the things Khan was left with when he was marooned on Ceti Alpha Five. Also, I would assume it was one a shiny full circle with the Enterprise insignia on it (At the time this was NOT the Starfleet Insignia, but just the Enterprise's, later all of Starfleet adopted it.) but it has become tarnished and broken over many years in the desert. Personal observation I removed the following: :It is interesting to note that Khan did not pick up on the code used by Kirk and Spock, namely that days equal hours, despite his augmented intelligence especially when Spock enunciated it very obviously and added "...By the book, Admiral" at the end, hinting yet again that it is a misdirection. It is only interesting to whoever wrote it and maybe a few others. It's very trivial, though, and not something that should be written in an encyclopedia. It also verges on nitpicking. --From Andoria with Love 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Old Klingon Proverb It annoys me greatly. How does Khan know an old Klingon proverb? Khan was from a time before major space travel or first contact with Klingons so he would have no interaction with their race or culture. He was unfrozen and had access to the Enterprise's databanks in Space Seed, but at this point I doubt very seriously their Klingon Wiki article would be about culture so much as the dangerous nature of their cold war with the Klingon Empire. And I doubt very seriously they would maroon Khan on Ceti Alpha Five with access to the Enterprise's tactical information on their greatest enemies! So where did this knowledge come from? Doesn't make any sense. Still a great line though. :Why wouldn't it include Klingon culture? At the time he was unfrozen, Earth had more than a century of contact with the Klingons. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ::Maybe Marla McGivers taught it to him. --TribbleFurSuit 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Removed nits I removed the following (after it was pointed out elsewhere) * The Enterprise and the Reliant seem to be caught in some kind of mild time-warp during their initial battle . After Khan has disabled the Enterprise he gives Kirk 60 seconds to hand over any information and materials he has relating to project:genesis. In reality 2 minutes and 34 seconds pass before Khan's "minute" runs out. Khan gives 45 and 15 second warnings at 26 seconds and 1 minute 32 seconds respectively. It's a nitpick. These kind of things are dramatic license, and not really notable.– Cleanse 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC) ---- Removed: * "When the Enterprise's engineering (secondary) hull is first breached by Reliant's phasers, a large bulkhead rolls down to contain the Main Engineering compartment. However, as you can see, the door closes between a "gap" in a horizontal section of the warp core, thus cutting off power to the plasma conduits that feed the warp nacelles. :"This "gap" is curious, but problematic. Never before or since have we heard that a "section" of the warp core can be removed to accommodate the emergency bulkhead. * "Even by old cryptography standards, a five-digit password or encryption code (the prefix code) is incredibly easy to guess or hack, especially so in the year 2285 with the kinds of computers that would be available. * "Just after Kirk forces the Reliant to lower its shields and then opens fire, the shield status diagram on the weapons console on the bridge of the Enterprise mistakenly shows a graphic of the Reliant instead of the Enterprise. It is possible that the image is a result of the Enterprise having 'hacked' into Reliants computer and the bridge consoles on the Enterprise are now governing the command functions of Reliant. * "In the final confrontation in the Mutara Nebula, after the Enterprise's phaser fire destroys half of the Reliant's port nacelle, it is momentarily whole and pristine before Enterprise's second photon torpedo blasts it from the hull. There are bound to be production errors, for dozens of reasons, but really, this site isn't to be a catalog for them. Let's not nitter away our time with them when the page is already big enough as it is. --Alan 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Kirk's Unease Kirk felt uneasy when the Enterprise was leaving space dock. He had previously made remarks like "I don't think they can steer," etc. Why is this so when Sulu was at the helm when they were leaving? Ctetc2007 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) there is little r :Are you referring to the new movie? If so, that took place in an alternate timeline, and as such anything said in this movie has no relevance.--31dot 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::No, I'm referring to this movie, The Wrath of Khan. There were several indications that Kirk hated training cruises. When the shuttlecraft was approaching the Enterprise for the first time, Kirk says "I hate inspections... Well I for one am glad to have you (Sulu) at the helm for 3 weeks. I don't think these kids can steer." When Saavik is giving commands to take the Enterprise out of space dock, Kirk is again acting uneasy, and Bones whispers to him "Would you like a tranquilizer?" I think that this is because it is a trainee (Saavik) "piloting" the Enterprise out of space dock, but Sulu is the one who is actually at the helm, so why should Kirk be worried? Ctetc2007 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)